I'm still investigating the Sede arguments, and wanted to address a question to John and/or anyone else. The question is regarding the following statement from Fr. Cekada:

Quote:

Fr. Cekada: "Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law. The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs. This is mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the supreme legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law. It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority - “ having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)

Unless I am missing something, the bolded portion clearly seems to be false. Sin takes place in the internal forum (the realm of conscience) and may or may not be manifest openly. Now according to Fr. Cekada, a sin against faith, in and of itself, will cause a pope to lose his office. If true, it means that the office is lost even if the heresy is not public. But this is contrary to the teaching of Bellarmine who said that a pope who was an occult (secret) heretic would retain his office.

Quote:

St. Bellarmine: "This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia".

In order to suport his statement, Fr. Cekada quote Billot saying: "having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church".

But if we look at the look at the entire quote from Billot, instead of the partial sentence Fr. Cekada cites, we find that he was speaking of a notorious heretic, which is a public heretic.

Quote:

Billot: “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.”

Now my main point is, unless there’s something I am missing, Fr. Cekada's argument is false at its foundation. His argument is that a pope who violates divine law by committing a sin of heresy automatically loses his office. But if this were the case the occult heretic would also lose his office, since even secret heresy is against the divine law.

Is there something I'm missing, or is Fr. Cekada simply wrong?

Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:11 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John,

I just tried to send you a pm, but for some reason it remained in my outbox and did not send. Maybe you can view it from your end?

Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:23 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Is there something I'm missing, or is Fr. Cekada simply wrong?

Well he still may argue that it is a public sin against faith that produces the lose of membership and therefore the lose of the papacy, but yes, I agree with you that Fr. Cekada is wrong here.

His argument seemed so obviously wrong that I wondered if there was something I was missing.

Now this same error extends to other points he makes in the same article, one of which is regarding the Constitution of Pius XII which permits all Cardinals, regardless of any previous impediments, to take part actively and passively in the election of a pope.

Quote:

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945)

Now according to Fr. Cekada, since Pius XII merely suspended (lifted?) violations of ecclesiastical law, and could not lift violations of divine law; and since, according to Fr. Cekada, a violation divine law by the sin of heresy renders a person incapable of being elected pope, he concludes that a person who is guilty of violating divine law by the sin of heresy cannot be been elected pope. The problem is, how would anyone know if a person was secretly guilty of heresy? That's why all the authors Bellarmine cites agree that a pope who is an occult (secret) heretic remains pope.

Quote:

Fr. Cekada: "Pius XII’s Constitution suspends impediments of ecclesiastical law only - censures such as excommunication, etc. (See para. 34: “…aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu.”) It does not and could not suspend impediments of divine law".

It seems to me that Fr. Cekada is equating a violation of divine law by the sin of heresy (which can be secret) with notorious heresy, which is always public. While it is virtually certain that a public and notorious heretic has violated divine law (unless he has lost his reason, for example), it is not true that all violations of divine law are public. Therefore, you cannot equate the two. As such, it is false to say that a man who violates divine law through the sin heresy cannot be elected pope, or cannot remain pope. An argument can be made that a public manifest heretic cannot be elected pope, but that is a separate issue. Yet it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is confusing the two, and ending by drawing a false conclusion. Any thoughts?

Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:32 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Now this same error extends to other points he makes in the same article, one of which is regarding the Constitution of Pius XII which permits all Cardinals, regardless of any previous impediments, to take part actively and passively in the election of a pope.

Quote:

Pope Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945)

Now according to Fr. Cekada, since Pius XII merely suspended (lifted?) violations of ecclesiastical law, and could not lift violations of divine law; and since, according to Fr. Cekada, a violation divine law by the sin of heresy renders a person incapable of being elected pope, he concludes that a person who is guilty of violating divine law by the sin of heresy cannot be been elected pope. The problem is, how would anyone know if a person was secretly guilty of heresy? That's why all the authors Bellarmine cites agree that a pope who is an occult (secret) heretic remains pope.

Several things here:

1) The provision doesn`t come from Pius XII; it existed for instance in the document of St. Pius X and Wernz-Vidal say this provision comes as eraly as the middle age.

2) The text explicitly says the censures are suspended, which means that if an excomunicated cardinal is not elected, the censure comes back (so to speak) after the conclave.

3) Many persons believe this document allows non-Catholics to be elected and or to elect Popes, and in this sense, IMO, Fr. Cekada rightly oppose this interpretation.

4) The measure deals with human Law, and therefore the Pope may modify it. The human Law states that those under some censure (excomunnication, interdict or suspention) cannot elect and be elcted. See canons 2241, 2257, 2258, 2265, 2266, 2268, 2275, 2278 and 2283

5) Your argument against Fr. Cekada seems correct to me.

6) The text refers two toleratus excommunicated and not to vitandus, for the simple reason that the latest is not member of the Church.

Quote:

Quote:

Fr. Cekada: "Pius XII’s Constitution suspends impediments of ecclesiastical law only - censures such as excommunication, etc. (See para. 34: “…aut alius ecclesiastici impedimenti praetextu.”) It does not and could not suspend impediments of divine law".

It seems to me that Fr. Cekada is equating a violation of divine law by the sin of heresy (which can be secret) with notorious heresy, which is always public. While it is virtually certain that a public and notorious heretic has violated divine law (unless he has lost his reason, for example), it is not true that all violations of divine law are public. Therefore, you cannot equate the two. As such, it is false to say that a man who violates divine law through the sin heresy cannot be elected pope, or cannot remain pope. An argument can be made that a public manifest heretic cannot be elected pope, but that is a separate issue. Yet it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is confusing the two, and ending by drawing a false conclusion. Any thoughts?

I agree. Perhaps he may argue and say he was talking about the public sin of heresy, in which case I`d still believe he is wrong but it`d be a defense anyway

Yes, he's wrong, RJS. I am not even sure what he thinks the import of the distinction is. I've refuted him before on this point, but I just did a search of the forums and I can't find it.

I did find this, however, which is a salutary warning about believing anything he says without looking it up:Fr. Cekada wrote, “The issue of the reception of a sacrament, however, is distinct from the one I have addressed above: active participation in common public worship, specifically, the Mass.”

Whatever distinction there is between them, it is not what Fr. Cekada states: both are public worship in common, as he should know. All of the sacraments constitute "public worship." This is not an obscure point. For a priest to write the sentence that Fr. Cekada wrote is incomprehensible. It's the kind of thing one would expect from an ignorant layman on Angelqueen.

This reminds me of the other crass error we've noted here before, the re-definition of communicatio in sacris. Bishop Sanborn wrote (and Fr. Cekada published it): "Communicatio in sacris is active participation by Catholics in the worship of non-Catholic religions."

This is totally and inexcusably wrong. Communicatio in sacris is active participation in divine worship by Catholics with non-Catholics, irrespective of the nature of the worship, but of course since false worship is forbidden in itself, communicatio in sacris is only ever raised as an issue when the worship itself is Catholic. The problem in view is the implicit recognition of non-Catholics as fellow Catholics. Going to a Methodist church on Sunday would be participating in false worship. Joining with an Episcopalian (i.e. an Anglican) in a public recitation of the Athanasian Creed would be communicatio in sacris cum acatholicus (i.e worship in common with a non-catholic). Likewise having a non-Catholic as best man at one's wedding. The worship itself is not the problem - the status of the person as a non-Catholic is.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:32 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Several things here:

1) The provision doesn`t come from Pius XII; it existed for instance in the document of St. Pius X and Wernz-Vidal say this provision comes as eraly as the middle age.

2) The text explicitly says the censures are suspended, which means that if an excomunicated cardinal is not elected, the censure comes back (so to speak) after the conclave.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for the clarification.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

3) Many persons believe this document allows non-Catholics to be elected and or to elect Popes, and in this sense, IMO, Fr. Cekada rightly oppose this interpretation.

I agree completely, but I would add the distinction of a non-Catholic in the external forum, as opposed to a Catholic (in the external forum) who has cut himself off from the Church spiritually by the sin of heresy. I would refer here to the distinction Bellarmine uses between the spiritual and corporeal bonds with the Church. In order to be elected to the Papacy, the person would have to be united to the Church externally, or by the "corporeal bonds". And I would add a further point by saying that, in my opinion (which I can defend) a person does not cease to be a member of the Church in the external forum simply by saying something heretical, even if a reasonable person would conclude that the person, due to his education, should know better. It would take more than simply making a heretical statement for the person to expel himself from the "body" of the Church.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

6) The text refers two toleratus excommunicated and not to vitandus, for the simple reason that the latest is not member of the Church.

That's a good point that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for clarifying that.

RJS wrote:

It seems to me that Fr. Cekada is equating a violation of divine law by the sin of heresy (which can be secret) with notorious heresy, which is always public. While it is virtually certain that a public and notorious heretic has violated divine law (unless he has lost his reason, for example), it is not true that all violations of divine law are public. Therefore, you cannot equate the two. As such, it is false to say that a man who violates divine law through the sin heresy cannot be elected pope, or cannot remain pope. An argument can be made that a public manifest heretic cannot be elected pope, but that is a separate issue. Yet it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is confusing the two, and ending by drawing a false conclusion. Any thoughts?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

I agree. Perhaps he may argue and say he was talking about the public sin of heresy, in which case I`d still believe he is wrong but it`d be a defense anyway

Yes, but if he claimed that he was referring to the public sin of heresy, his argument is still false since he claims that a violation of divine law through heresy renders a man incapable of being elected pope.

I would add the following for clarification. Public and notorious heresy (since it is almost always a violation of divine law) will separate a person from the spiritual bonds of the Church (loss of faith, hope and charity) and the corporeal bonds of the Church, since profession of the true faith is one of the corporeal bonds. Therefore, since such a person is cut off from the "body" of the Church, he is unable to be elected pope "since he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head". But the sin of heresy as such only severs a man from the soul of the Church which, according to the authors Bellarmine cites, does not render a man incapable of being pope.

So the distinction between the spiritual and corporeal bonds, or "body" and "soul" of the Church, is helpful in sorting this out.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:37 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John Lane wrote:

Yes, he's wrong, RJS. I am not even sure what he thinks the import of the distinction is. I've refuted him before on this point, but I just did a search of the forums and I can't find it.

Just to make sure we are in agreement on something. When people make the claim that a particular claimant to the Papacy cannot be the Pope (or could not have been validly elected pope) because he has violated divine law by heresy, do you agree that this argument, in and of itself, is false? If he was a public and notorious heretic it would be a different question, but I am only referring here to a violation of divine law by a sin against faith.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:50 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

3) Many persons believe this document allows non-Catholics to be elected and or to elect Popes, and in this sense, IMO, Fr. Cekada rightly oppose this interpretation.

I agree completely, but I would add the distinction of a non-Catholic in the external forum, as opposed to a Catholic (in the external forum) who has cut himself off from the Church spiritually by the sin of heresy. I would refer here to the distinction Bellarmine uses between the spiritual and corporeal bonds with the Church. In order to be elected to the Papacy, the person would have to be united to the Church externally, or by the "corporeal bonds". And I would add a further point by saying that, in my opinion (which I can defend) a person does not cease to be a member of the Church in the external forum simply by saying something heretical, even if a reasonable person would conclude that the person, due to his education, should know better. It would take more than simply making a heretical statement for the person to expel himself from the "body" of the Church.

The distinction between the internal and external bonds is very important, because the last ones are those who make you non-member of the Church (in spite of the opinion of some theologians), yet I wouldn`t be sure Bellarmine would endorse your opinion. For instance the Popes said that Nestorious bacame heretic immediately (statim) he began to preach his heresy. See http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewt ... f=2&t=1088 (post 5 made by J. Lane)

Quote:

Yes, but if he claimed that he was referring to the public sin of heresy, his argument is still false since he claims that a violation of divine law through heresy renders a man incapable of being elected pope.

Well heresy is clearly against divine law. For instance Salaverri says: "formal and material heretics, apostates or schismatics break the social bound of faith or regime (regiminis) established by Christ as something essential" (De Eccl. Nº 1059). Divine law means established by Our Lord and Our Lord established that those professing some different faith are not members of the Church. The thing here is that if besides the moral and the canonical aspect you have some other distinction.

Quote:

I would add the following for clarification. Public and notorious heresy (since it is almost always a violation of divine law) will separate a person from the spiritual bonds of the Church (loss of faith, hope and charity)

Not necessarily. What about material heretics?

Quote:

and the corporeal bonds of the Church, since profession of the true faith is one of the corporeal bonds. Therefore, since such a person is cut off from the "body" of the Church, he is unable to be elected pope "since he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head". But the sin of heresy as such only severs a man from the soul of the Church which, according to the authors Bellarmine cites, does not render a man incapable of being pope.

I agree with you here. The sin of heresy breaks the internal bonds of unity and therefore as such is incapable of effecting the lose of membership. (Ex profeso I avoid using the term "soul of the Church" since folowing Fenton I believe the term is, at the very least, ambiguous)

Quote:

So the distinction between the spiritual and corporeal bonds, or "body" and "soul" of the Church, is helpful in sorting this out.

Just to make sure we are in agreement on something. When people make the claim that a particular claimant to the Papacy cannot be the Pope (or could not have been validly elected pope) because he has violated divine law by heresy, do you agree that this argument, in and of itself, is false? If he was a public and notorious heretic it would be a different question, but I am only referring here to a violation of divine law by a sin against faith.

No, I think the statement you refer to is fine, because it's shorthand for public heresy. Occult heretics are not usually what we have in mind when we say "heretic" - we mean one who has made his heresy manifest, not one whose heresy is known by a few close friends who won't reveal it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:08 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

I agree completely, but I would add the distinction of a non-Catholic in the external forum, as opposed to a Catholic (in the external forum) who has cut himself off from the Church spiritually by the sin of heresy.

Well, to be clear in the use of this terminology, we would say that a Catholic is a member and part of the Church. That's what a Catholic is. This has nothing to do with the internal bonds of the Church and they shouldn't be mentioned in connection with it. The reason a man is a Catholic is because he has been baptised and has not frustrated the effects of baptism by public apostasy, heresy, or schism (or had these effects prevented by the action of the Church). The point is that we do not, and should not, refer to a man as a non-Catholic in the external forum, as opposed to a Catholic (in the external forum). This is confusing terminology. A forum is a place where a judgement is made. A non-Catholic is not a non-Catholic because of a judgement made in any particular forum. He is a non-Catholic because he has severed himself from the Church, which is a visible social body. The only place the judgement can be made is the external forum, but that is quite distinct from the question of why he isn't a Catholic. The moon may be full tonight, but it isn't full because of the fact that you can only see it if you go outside your house to see it.

RJS wrote:

a person does not cease to be a member of the Church in the external forum simply by saying something heretical, even if a reasonable person would conclude that the person, due to his education, should know better. It would take more than simply making a heretical statement for the person to expel himself from the "body" of the Church.

Once again, let's use clear terms and have clear ideas. The heretical statement is not the essential problem. It is merely a clear sign of misbelief. When we judge that another isn't a Catholic, we don't do so on the basis of a single heretical statement, we make a judgement based upon the whole of the data. Does he know better? Does he mean what he said? Is it clear that he knows better and said that anyway? We're trying to arrive at secure possession of the truth - does this man believe? A single statement may well suffice, if it were made in circumstances where it could not have been ambiguous or accidental. Take a bloke arraigned before the Holy Office, charged with denying the Incarnation, who is asked, does he believe that the Word became man? He answers, no, I do not, I believe that the Word took on the mere appearances of human nature. He's a heretic.

It isn't the single statement which convicts him - it's the whole circumstance and the statement combined. Likewise any other example of heresy. Nestorius was clearly a public heretic because everybody knew that he knew better, and he didn't clarify or correct what he'd said, he persisted and began persecuting those who resisted him. The circumstances produced a clear judgement. I would argue that Paul VI, despite his oily and ambiguous conduct, provided sufficient evidence that he too was a non-believer.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:33 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Quote:

RJS: "Yes, but if he claimed that he was referring to the public sin of heresy, his argument is still false since he claims that a violation of divine law through heresy renders a man incapable of being elected pope".

Just to clarify, I shouldn't have used the word "public" in that statement. Doing so changed what I meant to say. I was referring to the sin of heresy as such, without being public.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:58 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John Lane wrote:

The point is that we do not, and should not, refer to a man as a non-Catholic in the external forum, as opposed to a Catholic (in the external forum). This is confusing terminology. A forum is a place where a judgement is made. A non-Catholic is not a non-Catholic because of a judgement made in any particular forum.

Just to be clear, when I referred the external forum, I didn't mean the external forum of the Church, but the external forum of the individual person. For example, a man who is a member of a Baptist sect would be a non-Catholic in the external forum. Since he is not a member of the Church, we would rightly judge him to be a non-Catholic. On the other hand, we could have a person who was a Catholic in the external forum (he openly professes to be a Catholic and attends a Catholic Church on Sunday), yet the person could be a secret heretic. The Baptist would not be elligible to be pope (since he is a non-Catholic in the external forum), but a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, who was secretly a heretic, would be.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:48 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Question from a non-Sede

I am absolutely certain that John Lane covered, in great detail, the issue of public and occult heresy and how each affects the bonds of unity in his series of article "The Church Crucified" published in The Four Marks. Unfortunately, I no longer have them so I cannot say when it was published. Perhaps John could check his files and post these articles on the website or (better yet) publish them as a book. (I know...you already told me that you simply don't have the time or resources to prepare them for publication--but I hope that someday you'll be able to).

Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:59 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Just to be clear, when I referred the external forum, I didn't mean the external forum of the Church, but the external forum of the individual person. For example, a man who is a member of a Baptist sect would be a non-Catholic in the external forum. Since he is not a member of the Church, we would rightly judge him to be a non-Catholic. On the other hand, we could have a person who was a Catholic in the external forum (he openly professes to be a Catholic and attends a Catholic Church on Sunday), yet the person could be a secret heretic. The Baptist would not be elligible to be pope (since he is a non-Catholic in the external forum), but a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, who was secretly a heretic, would be.

Dear RJS,

We agree on the results, but you're still using the terminology in a way which is confusing. The external forum isn't distinguished as you suggest. There is only one, and it means an abstract place in reference to the person, without reference to the Church herself.

When we use the term Catholic we mean a member and part of the Church. That's what the term means. It means a component of the Church, a cell of the Mystical Body. We make the judgements about who is and who isn't a Catholic in the external forum, but that's irrelevant to the question of fact itself. One is either a Catholic or one isn't.

St. Robert Bellarmne's terminology is the best, the clearest. He eschews any reference to the forum in which the judgement occurs, and simply disinguishes between the two kinds of bonds that may unite a man to the Church - the internal and the external. A man may be united to the Church only by external bonds, only by internal bonds, or by both. A Baptist is certainly not united by the external bonds, but may conceivably be united to the Church by the internal bonds. A secret heretic is united only by external bonds.

Membership in the Church - that is, as I've said, the concept that one constitutes a component of the Church - is purely derived from and dependent upon the external bonds of unity. Nothing else is relevant.

And it is membership upon which in turn the possibility of possessing habitual jurisdiction depends. As you rightly say, one who is not a member cannot possess an office in the Church, least of all the office of visible head.

The question then resolves itself into whether your cardinal has severed the external bonds of faith or charity which hitherto have united him to the Church. Do we agree on that? (I think we do, but let's be clear).

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:06 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

TKGS wrote:

I am absolutely certain that John Lane covered, in great detail, the issue of public and occult heresy and how each affects the bonds of unity in his series of article "The Church Crucified" published in The Four Marks. Unfortunately, I no longer have them so I cannot say when it was published. Perhaps John could check his files and post these articles on the website or (better yet) publish them as a book. (I know...you already told me that you simply don't have the time or resources to prepare them for publication--but I hope that someday you'll be able to).

In the current issue, and the next, are published an article Heresy and Heretics in two parts which covers the ground as best I can, dealing with heresy and its effects on membership in the Church, but does not deal with the further effects of heresy, such as the radical incapacity to possess offices. The question of how heresy is known is covered.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:18 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John Lane wrote:

The question then resolves itself into whether your cardinal has severed the external bonds of faith or charity which hitherto have united him to the Church. Do we agree on that? (I think we do, but let's be clear).

Yes, we agree on this point. Where we will probably disagree is the point at which a Bishop automatically loses his jurisdiction. And at what point a pope would lose his office without a declaration. According to Suarez, it was the common opinion in his day that a pope could not lose his office, even through heresy, without a declaration.

Quote:

Suraez: “(…) in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today: Cajetan (de Auctoritate Papae, c. 18 et 19); Soto (4, d.22, quaest. 2, art. 2); Cano (4 de Locis, c. ult. ad 12); Corduba (lib. 4, q. 11). Later, on treating the penalties of the heretics, we will indicate still other authors, and in a general manner show that by divine law no one is deprived of dignity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction because of the crime of heresy. Now we will give an “a priori” argument: since such a destitution is a most grave penalty, one would only incur it “ipso facto” if it were expressed in the divine law; however, we do not find any law which establishes this, either in general as far as the heretics are concerned, or in particular as to the Bishops, nor in a very particular way as far as the Pope is concerned. Neither is there a certain Tradition over this matter. (…)

“This is confirmed by the fact that such a law would be harmful to the church; by no means, then, would one be able to believe that it had been instituted by Christ; the foregoing is proved: if the Pope were an occult heretic, and for this reason would have fallen “ipso facto” from his charge, all his acts would be invalid. You will say that at least this argument proves nothing as far as a notorious and public heretic is concerned. But this is not true, for if the external but occult heretic still can be the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And that, both because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other.

“A second confirmation, which is of great importance: in case the heresy of the Pope turned external, but occult, and after that he turned back with true repentance, he would be placed in a situation of total perplexity: if he lost the charge by reason of heresy, he ought absolutely to abandon the pontificate, which is most serious and almost contrary to natural law, for it is to denounce oneself; but he could not retain the episcopate, for this would be intrinsically evil. This being the case, even the defenders of the contrary opinion confess that in this case it would be licit to conserve the episcopacy, and that he would therefore be the true Pope; this is the common opinion of the canonists, and that of the Gloss (c. “Nuno autem”, d.21). From thence one infers an evident argument against them, for granted that the pontifical charge is not restored by God through penance, as grace is restored, for it is unheard of that he who is not the true Pope be made Pope by God without the election and ministry of men.

“Finally, the faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as in taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said. (…) I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. The reason is the following: It would be most gravely prejudicial to the church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend herself in so grave a danger; in addition to this it would be contrary to the dignity of the church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff, without being able to expel him from herself; for such as are the prince and the priest, so the people are accustomed to be; this is confirmed by the reasons adduced in favor of the previous opinion (that of deposition “ipso facto”), above all by that which says that heresy “propagates itself like cancer”, a motive for which the heretics must be avoided as much as possible, and therefore much more so a Pastor heretic; but how could he be avoided, if he did not cease to be pastor? (…) In respect to this conclusion some explanations must be given. In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs,as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors. One can see what Cardinal Albano explained lengthily over this point (De Cardinalibus, q. 35 – edition of 1584, tom 13, p. 2).

“A second doubt: how could such a Council meet legitimately, since it pertains to the Pope to convoke it legitimately? One answers, in the first place, that perhaps it would not be necessary for a general council as such to meet, but it might be enough if in each region there met provincial or national Councils, convoked by the Archbishops or Primates, and that all arrived at the same conclusion. “In the second place, if a general council meets to define matters of faith or to lay down universal laws, it is only legitimate if it is convoked by the Pope; but if it meets to treat the matter of which we speak, which especially concerns the Pontiff himself and is in a certain manner contrary to him, the council can be legitimately convoked either by the College of Cardinals or by agreement among the bishops; and if the Pontiff attempted to prevent such a meeting, he should not be obeyed, for, acting against justice or the common good, he would be abusing his supreme power. (…) From this arises a third doubt: by what right could the Pope be judged by that assembly, being superior to it?9 In this matter Cajetan makes extraordinary efforts to avoid seeing himself forced to admit that the Church or a Council are above the Pope in case of heresy; he concludes in the end that the Church and the Council are superior to the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person. This distinction however does not satisfy, for with the same argument one would be able to say it belongs to the Church to judge or to punish the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person (…).

“Others affirm that, in case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope. But this is difficult to admit for Christ constituted the Pope as the absolutely supreme judge; the canons also affirm this principle in a general way and without distinctions, and finally the Church cannot exercise any act of jurisdiction over the Pope, and on electing him does not confer the power upon him, but designates the person upon whom Christ directly confers the power.

“Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then “ipso facto” and immediately deposed by Christ, and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished.”

What you seem so certain about today is exactly contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors during the time Suarez lived.

Not only do I have a source for it, but I have more of the same. In fact, the following quote is even more of a problem for the Sedevacantist position. This quote is from the French canonist Bouix (+1870)

Quote:

Bouix: “There is not sufficient reason to think that Christ had determined that an heretical Pope could be deposed. The reason allegeable in favor of that deposition [is] the enormous evil which would come upon the Church in case such a Pope were not deposed. Now this reason does not hold: for, on the one hand, a Pope heretic does not constitute an evil so great that it necessarily leads the Church to ruin and destruction; and, on the other hand, the deposition would be a remedy much worse than the evil itself.

“In the first place, therefore, we have said that the papal heresy of which we treat here does not constitute an evil so grave that it necessarily obliges one to think that Christ would desire the deposition of such a Pontiff. It is a question, in effect, of exclusively private heresy, that is, professed by the Pontiff not as Pastor of the church and in his papal decrees and acts, but only as a private doctor and just in his private speeches and writings. Now, as long as the Pope teaches the true faith whenever he defines or makes pronouncements as Pontiff, the faithful will be sufficiently safe, even though it be known, at the same time, that the Pope himself adheres privately to some heresy. All would easily understand that an opinon defended by the Pope as a private doctor would be destitute of authority, and that he should only be obeyed when he defined or imposed truths of faith officially and with the pontifical authority. … We deny absolutely, however, that Christ could have established as a remedy the deposition of the Pope.

“For – this is our second assertion – such a remedy would be worse than the evil itself. Indeed, one either supposes that this deposition would be carried out by Christ himself, as soon as the Pope were declared a heretic by a general council according to the doctrine of Suarez, or one supposes that it would be realized by virtue of the authority of the general council itself. Now, in both cases the evil would be aggravated, and not remedied. For the doctrine according to which Christ himself would depose the Pope heretic, as soon as the General council declared him a heretic, is no more than an opinion, rejected by any, and with which it is licit, for anyone whatsoever, to disagree. Suarez himself judges this opinion less probable, in as much as he reputes it to be more probable that there cannot be a Pope heretic, not even privately. Such being the case, even after it were declared by a General Council that a certain Pope were a heretic, it would absolutely not become certain that that Pope would be deposed; and in such a doubt one must rather continue to respect his authority. If another Pope were elected not only would he be of uncertain legitimacy, but he would even have to be branded as an intruder. Therefore, the remedy of a deposition made by Christ in the moment of a conciliar declaration, not only would not remedy the evil, but would create an evil much more grave, that is, a most intricate schism. Consequently, by no means should one think that Christ established such a remedy. But neither should one think that He established as a remedy deposition by the authority of the council itself. For, the deposition of a Pope by a council, besides being impossible, as will be said further on, would be followed by a worse evil if it were possible.

“In fact, the concession to a council, by Christ, of such authority over a Pope heretic, is no more than a simple opinion most commonly rejected by Catholic doctors, and even intrinsically inadmissible, as is easily demonstrated. Then, after such deposition, it absolutely would not become certain that the heretical Pope would have been deprived of the pontifical primacy. He who would have been elected in his place would be branded by many as an intruder, and as such would be licitly rejected. This measure, therefore, would not bring a remedy, but rather a schism, confusion and dissension.”

“It would be most harmful to the Church if the Pope were deposed “ipso facto” for being a heretic. For this would be done either only when he were a notorious and public heretic, or also for occult external heresy, or even for internal heresy. If it were for public and notorious heresy, there would arise doubts as regards the degree of notoriety or infamy necessary for the Pontiff to be considered destitute of the Papacy. Thence would arise schisms and everything would become uncertain, the more so if, in spite of the alleged notoriety, the Pope were to conserve his charge by force or by any other means, and continued to exercise many acts of his office. If the destitution were made on the grounds of external but occult heresy there would arise even greater evils. For all the acts of such a Pontiff, occultly heretical, would be null and invalid, but this would only be known to a few persons. Such difficulty would be even greater, as is obvious if the Pope were deposed “ipso facto” on account of internal heresy. (…)

“Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction. For in case of extreme necessity a heretical priest can absolve, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, however absolution requires and supposes jurisdiction. Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the texts in which some Fathers teach that he who has not faith cannot have jurisdiction in the Church, we answer: this ought to be understood in the sense that without faith ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot be exercised appropriately, and in the sense that the heretic deserves to be deprived of jurisdiction;[/u] or some of these texts must be interpreted as determinations of Canon Law relative to the Bishops in particular, determinations which declare them to be deposed “ipso facto” (…).

“To the argument that, not being a member of the church, the heretical Pope is not the head of the church either, (…) one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge. Indeed, it is not absurd that Christ wishes that the Pope (the same might be said of a bishop in relation to the diocese), while he might not be part of this body supernaturally alive due to heresy, should nevertheless still conserve the power of governing the Church, exactly as if he had not lost the supernatural life mentioned above.

“As far as the power of orders, there is no doubt that Christ did not wish that either heretical priests or bishops be deprived of it, although by reason of heresy they have already ceased to be members of the Church, in the sense indicated. Now, the permanence of jurisdiction in a Bishop would not be more absurd than in a Pope heretic, whether the heresy be only internal, or even external”. (END)

The source for both quotes is the book Can The Pope Go Bad?, which John Lane posted on his website a few months ago.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:42 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Quote:

Suraez: “(…) in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today: Cajetan (de Auctoritate Papae, c. 18 et 19); Soto (4, d.22, quaest. 2, art. 2); Cano (4 de Locis, c. ult. ad 12); Corduba (lib. 4, q. 11). Later, on treating the penalties of the heretics, we will indicate still other authors, and in a general manner show that by divine law no one is deprived of dignity and ecclesiastical jurisdiction because of the crime of heresy. Now we will give an “a priori” argument: since such a destitution is a most grave penalty, one would only incur it “ipso facto” if it were expressed in the divine law; however, we do not find any law which establishes this, either in general as far as the heretics are concerned, or in particular as to the Bishops, nor in a very particular way as far as the Pope is concerned. Neither is there a certain Tradition over this matter. (…)

The defenders of the ipso facto "deposition" never argue that he loses the office because of the crime of heresy. In this regard, Fr. Cekada is right. What we say, following canon 188.4 and similars is that by public heresy he ceases to be member of the Church and therefore renounces tacitly to his office. This whole question has nothing to do with the crime of heresy, since, as Suarez says below, a person may comit the crime of heresy by external although not public act and yet this person would still retain the office, but this is obiously so because he is still member of the Church.

Quote:

“This is confirmed by the fact that such a law would be harmful to the church; by no means, then, would one be able to believe that it had been instituted by Christ; the foregoing is proved: if the Pope were an occult heretic, and for this reason would have fallen “ipso facto” from his charge, all his acts would be invalid. You will say that at least this argument proves nothing as far as a notorious and public heretic is concerned. But this is not true, for if the external but occult heretic still can be the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And that, both because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other.

This is all a petitio principii and he is also fighting against a straw man.Regarding his last argument, with his theory we may say as well that if the Pope needs to be deposed then "here would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other"; besides hoy many Bishops, Cardinals, etc would be considered enough for the deposition to be valid, etc.

Quote:

“A second confirmation, which is of great importance: in case the heresy of the Pope turned external, but occult, and after that he turned back with true repentance, he would be placed in a situation of total perplexity: if he lost the charge by reason of heresy, he ought absolutely to abandon the pontificate, which is most serious and almost contrary to natural law, for it is to denounce oneself; but he could not retain the episcopate, for this would be intrinsically evil. This being the case, even the defenders of the contrary opinion confess that in this case it would be licit to conserve the episcopacy, and that he would therefore be the true Pope; this is the common opinion of the canonists, and that of the Gloss (c. “Nuno autem”, d.21). From thence one infers an evident argument against them, for granted that the pontifical charge is not restored by God through penance, as grace is restored, for it is unheard of that he who is not the true Pope be made Pope by God without the election and ministry of men.

Straw man. Nobody I`m aware of ever defended what he is attacking here.

“

Quote:

Finally, the faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction ….

Is he talking about the virtue of faith or about the profession of faith? The sentence, as it is here, is ambiguous.

Quote:

The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as in taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…)

This is a common mistake of those who say that membership is not required for possesing jurisdiction against the warning of Billot:

Quote:

"Finally there is another argument (that occult heretics are still members of the Church):Since he who is outside the Church, is ipso facto unable to have any ordinary jurisdiction, such as the episcopal. The reason is that he who has ordinary or truly episcopal jurisdiction, obtains the dingity of a head, and no one may be a particular head of the Church if he is not member of the Church. Who was ever head without being member? Because although not every member is head yet all head is member..."

And after the words "is ipso facto unable to have any ordinary jurisdiction" there is a footnote saying:

Quote:

"note how I say on purpose any ordinary jurisdiction, since, as it will easily appear on he who thinks upon it, it is not the same thing with the extraordinary and merely delegated jurisdiction in case of necesity. Quaestio VII, pag. 305. First parenthesis mine.

Quote:

The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze

Sed contra est Leo XIII "it is absurd to say that he who is outside the Church may preside in the Church" (Satis Cognitum) besides there is but one concept of membership as it was defined by Pius XII in M. Corporis.

Quote:

analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said. (…)

Analogy fails. We are talking here about ordinary jursidiction and one of its requisites, namely membership. You don´t need membership in the Church (and a fortiori ordinary jursidiction) for baptzing and absolving.

Quote:

I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church.

This is simply against canon 1556. Prima sedes a nemine judicatur.

Quote:

This is the common opinion among the doctors

??????

Quote:

The reason is the following: It would be most gravely prejudicial to the church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend herself in so grave a danger; in addition to this it would be contrary to the dignity of the church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff, without being able to expel him from herself;

How can a Catholic avoid his head when he is obliged to be subject to him?

Quote:

“A second doubt: how could such a Council meet legitimately, since it pertains to the Pope to convoke it legitimately? One answers, in the first place, that perhaps it would not be necessary for a general council as such to meet, but it might be enough if in each region there met provincial or national Councils, convoked by the Archbishops or Primates, and that all arrived at the same conclusion.

This is morally imposible! And there will be so many schisms and fights...

“

Quote:

In the second place, if a general council meets to define matters of faith or to lay down universal laws, it is only legitimate if it is convoked by the Pope; but if it meets to treat the matter of which we speak, which especially concerns the Pontiff himself and is in a certain manner contrary to him, the council can be legitimately convoked either by the College of Cardinals or by agreement among the bishops; and if the Pontiff attempted to prevent such a meeting, he should not be obeyed, for, acting against justice or the common good, he would be abusing his supreme power. (…)

This leads easily towards conciliarism.

Quote:

From this arises a third doubt: by what right could the Pope be judged by that assembly, being superior to it?9 In this matter Cajetan makes extraordinary efforts to avoid seeing himself forced to admit that the Church or a Council are above the Pope in case of heresy; he concludes in the end that the Church and the Council are superior to the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person. This distinction however does not satisfy, for with the same argument one would be able to say it belongs to the Church to judge or to punish the Pope, not as Pope, but as a private person (…).

I agree! (at last! )

Quote:

“Others affirm that, in case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope. But this is difficult to admit for Christ constituted the Pope as the absolutely supreme judge; the canons also affirm this principle in a general way and without distinctions, and finally the Church cannot exercise any act of jurisdiction over the Pope, and on electing him does not confer the power upon him, but designates the person upon whom Christ directly confers the power.

I agree

Quote:

“Therefore on deposing a heretical Pope, the Church would not act as superior to him, but juridically, and by the consent of Christ, she would [b]declare him a heretic and therefore unworthy of Pontifical honors; he would be then “ipso facto” and immediately deposed by Christ, and once deposed he would become inferior and would be able to be punished.”

Therefore if it is a declaratory sentence then the effects are retroactive and the Pope ceased to be Pope before the declaration. This is the essential point of sedevacantists today:)

Quote:

What you seem so certain about today is exactly contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors during the time Suarez lived.

[/quote]

Well the theaching that the Pope ceases to be Pope ipso facto is in canon 188.4 and St Robert says "it is the common teaching of the Fathers"...

You're entitled to adopt the discredited position of Suarez if you like. Bouix's position is absolutely unique and I don't think a rational position to hold.

But if you choose to believe Suarez, you have to explain why you reject the doctrine of Bellarmine, when the latter has been named Doctor of the Church precisely in order to recommend his doctrine to the faithful.

Suarez relies upon a letter from Pope Clement, if memory serves, which in fact doesn't have the text which he claims it has. He must have been deceived by a forged letter.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:51 am

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John Lane wrote:

RJS,

You're entitled to adopt the discredited position of Suarez if you like.

But its not just Suarez' position. He said it was the common opinion in his day. You might not agree with it, but I'm sure you wouldn't accuse him of lying. Yet if he is telling the truth, it is not merely his lone opinion, but the common opinion of his day.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:07 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

John Lane wrote:

RJS,

You're entitled to adopt the discredited position of Suarez if you like.

But its not just Suarez' position. He said it was the common opinion in his day. You might not agree with it, but I'm sure you wouldn't accuse him of lying. Yet if he is telling the truth, it is not merely his lone opinion, but the common opinion of his day.

Well it happens that sometimes theologians may be a little confident about the theses they defend. Even his theory (Suarez`s) is IMO essentially different to that of Cajetan, because for Suarez you need a declaratory sentence whereas for Cajetan you need a condemnatory one.

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. Concerning this matter there are five Opinions of which the first denies the hypothesis upon which the entire question is based, namely that a Pope even as a private doctor can fall into heresy. This opinion although pious and probable cannot be said to be certain and common. For this reason the hypothesis is to be accepted and the question resolved.

A second opinion holds that the Roman Pontiff forfeits his power automatically even on account of occult heresy. This opinion is rightly said by Bellarmine to be based upon a false supposition, namely that even occult heretics are completely separated from the body of the Church... The third opinion thinks that the Roman Pontiff does not automatically forfeit his power and cannot be deprived of it by deposition even for manifest heresy. This assertion is very rightly said by Bellarmine to be "extremely improbable".

The fourth opinion, with Suarez, Cajetan and others, contends that a Pope is not automatically deposed even for manifest heresy, but that he can and must be deposed by at least a declaratory sentence of the crime. "Which opinion in my judgment is indefensible" as Bellarmine teaches.

Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit. But he cannot be deprived by a merely declaratory sentence...

Wherefore, it must be firmly stated that a heretical Roman Pontiff would by that very fact forfeit his power. Although a declaratory sentence of the crime which is not to be rejected in so far as it is merely declaratory would be such that the heretical Pope would not be judged, but would rather be shown to have been judged.

You're entitled to adopt the discredited position of Suarez if you like.

But its not just Suarez' position. He said it was the common opinion in his day. You might not agree with it, but I'm sure you wouldn't accuse him of lying. Yet if he is telling the truth, it is not merely his lone opinion, but the common opinion of his day.

Well it happens that sometimes theologians may be a little confident about the theses they defend. Even his theory (Suarez`s) is IMO essentially different to that of Cajetan, because for Suarez you need a declaratory sentence whereas for Cajetan you need a condemnatory one.

453. By heresy which is notorious and openly made known. The Roman Pontiff should he fall into it is by that very fact even before any declaratory sentence of the Church deprived of his power of jurisdiction. ... Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church.

Yes, I read that part. But granting this opinion for the sake of argument, we still have the following question: At what point is the pope considered a "notrious heretic". If he a pope openly left the Church, we would have a clear case. Or if he openly admitted that he did not accept this or that dogma of the Faith a strong case could be made. But simply seeming to be a heretic, and making statements that seem on face value to be heretical does not seem sufficent to me. But again, even if they do cross that line, there are various opinion on whether or not he would lose his office, or exactly how it should be dealt with.

And also consider how much easier it is to deal with something on the speculative level. It is much more difficult to deal with something on the practical level. Yet even on the speculative level there is disagreement with holy and learned men.

Lastly, consider what Suarez and Bouix said. I'll quote the latter, but both made similar statement: “It would be most harmful to the Church if the Pope were deposed “ipso facto” for being a heretic. For this would be done either only when he were a notorious and public heretic, or also for occult external heresy, or even for internal heresy. If it were for public and notorious heresy, there would arise doubts as regards the degree of notoriety or infamy necessary for the Pontiff to be considered destitute of the Papacy. Thence would arise schisms and everything would become uncertain, the more so if, in spite of the alleged notoriety, the Pope were to conserve his charge by force or by any other means, and continued to exercise many acts of his office".

This is exactly what we see today. The sedevacantist are probably as divided as the Protestants 40 years after their so-called reform. In other words, we see that what Suarez and Bouix said would happen, is exactly what has happened within Sedevacantism.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:45 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

At what point is the pope considered a "notrious heretic".

Canon 188.4 is very clear. It says this happens once it is public and canon 2197 defines "public". I don`t know what is so complicated.

Canon 646 applies the same principle that canon 188.4 saying that heretics are dismissed ipso facto as religious men. Because you cannot be member of a religious institute if you are not member of the Church. The canon reads:

Quote:

Canon 646 says:"religious are to be considered dismissed ipso facto in the following cases:

1) In public apostasy from the Catholic Church...

In these cases it suffices that the major superior with his chapter or council, makes a declaration of the fact"

And the CPI (the organ in charge of officialy interpretating the canons) said comenting canon 646 that the declaration is not necessary for the ipso facto dismissal of the religious. (July 30 of 1934).

This is clearly against the thesis that the Pope (or anyonw else for that matter) must be deposed.

Quote:

Lastly, consider what Suarez and Bouix said. I'll quote the latter, but both made similar statement: “It would be most harmful to the Church if the Pope were deposed “ipso facto” for being a heretic. For this would be done either only when he were a notorious and public heretic, or also for occult external heresy, or even for internal heresy. If it were for public and notorious heresy, there would arise doubts as regards the degree of notoriety or infamy necessary for the Pontiff to be considered destitute of the Papacy. Thence would arise schisms and everything would become uncertain, the more so if, in spite of the alleged notoriety, the Pope were to conserve his charge by force or by any other means, and continued to exercise many acts of his office".

Well, it is not that hard. A public heretic is no longer member of the Church and therefore cannot be its head anymore. If a person wish to leave the Catholic Church he may do it. The Church never "admonished" those who wanted to leave the Church (something that would be impossible by the way). Remember that the foundation of the ipso facto renunciation is the loss of membership.Besides if what you say is true then canons 188 and 646 have no meaning whatsoever.

Without entering into the arguments that are being discussed between you and Messieurs Lane and Jacobo, may I ask you a couple of questions, in order to be able to better appreciate what is being said by each side on this debate?

My first question then would be, have you read the following study by Fr. Cekada:

It deals ex professo with this subject on which he touches almost en passant in the text you quote. Plus, it was written later. So, I 'd think this would be the place to start in order to better understand his argument.

Because specially in light of this more recent study, I for one do think that you're missing something about the point he's making.

My second question would have to do with what Bouix is saying in the following passage you quote of him:

"In the first place, therefore, we have said that the papal heresy of which we treat here does not constitute an evil so grave that it necessarily obliges one to think that Christ would desire the deposition of such a Pontiff. It is a question, in effect, of exclusively private heresy, that is, professed by the Pontiff not as Pastor of the church and in his papal decrees and acts, but only as a private doctor and just in his private speeches and writings. Now, as long as the Pope teaches the true faith whenever he defines or makes pronouncements as Pontiff, the faithful will be sufficiently safe, even though it be known, at the same time, that the Pope himself adheres privately to some heresy. All would easily understand that an opinon defended by the Pope as a private doctor would be destitute of authority, and that he should only be obeyed when he defined or imposed truths of faith officially and with the pontifical authority."

Now, only to make sure that I understand where you're coming from, don't you see that this most certainly does not apply to the "conciliar popes" at all?

In fact, all the theologians quoted by Da Silveira discuss what would happen to the "pope heretic" that would fall into heresy (occult or even public heresy) as a private doctor only. That is, at most "in his private speeches and writings," as Bouix puts it.

The sole theologian that seems to admit that a "pope heretic" could also teach heresies "in his papal decrees and acts," "when he makes pronouncements as Pontiff," (to employ Bouix's expressions again) is... Da Silveira himself!

What a tragedy, that this absurd opinion should be taken as the guiding star of Bishops De Castro Mayer and Lefebvre in their actions!

In JMJ,Felipe Coelho

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:17 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

At what point is the pope considered a "notrious heretic".

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Canon 188.4 is very clear. It says this happens once it is public and canon 2197 defines "public". I don`t know what is so complicated.

Since this it is easy for you to apply this cannon, I'll give two examples and let you tell me if these men who publicly taught heresy automatically lost their office. Both of these examples come from an article written by John Daly.

Quote:

John Henry Cardinal Newman:

In 1845 an Anglican minister became a Catholic - John Henry Newman. Already learned in patristics, he did not equip himself with an adequate formation in Catholic theology. Ordained priest, he wrote on theological questions, admitting errors in Holy Scripture, salvation outside the Church, etc. One of the propositions later condemned by St Pius X's Lamentabili (Prop. 25) appears three times verbatim in different writings of Newman. Naturally in the prelude to the 1870 Vatican Council he opposed papal infallibility. His writings were attacked by Cardinals Franzelin, Lépicier and Billot, by Perrone and Brownson among others. Cardinal Manning reproached him with ten distinct heresies to be found in his writings. Other bishops spoke of his heresies also. Detailed refutations appeared which he could hardly have been unaware of. Nonetheless he retracted nothing.

So was he a heretic? Far from being excommunicated...he was himself raised to the cardinalate! The whole Church remained in communion with him. The only explanation for this must be that, despite appearances, his errors were not deemed to be directly and explicitly heretical...or else that the Catholics of the day, from the pope down, had a conception of pertinacity considerably more demanding than that in circulation among members of that sedevacantist school which hurls its anathemas so lightly in our days.

Fr. Newman's heresies were public. In fact, he was even confronted with them, yet "retracted nothing". So, based on your application of canon 188.4, did Fr. Newman automatically cease to be a member of the Church? If not, why? If so, how do you explain that he was raised to the cardinlate after public professing these heresies, and without ever retracting them?

The next example deals with an Bishop who publicly preached heresy. He was sent a letter by the pope himself telling him that his public views were heretical, yet he "retracted nothing". From the article...

Quote:

Mgr Darboy

In 1865 Mgr Darboy, archbishop of Paris and member of the French senate expressed in an important speech to the senate ideas clearly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, which, unlike papal infallibility, already belonged to the corps of Catholic doctrine. The speech was a public defiance of the pope and a refusal to recognise the pope's ordinary and universal jurisdiction in the dioceses of France.

Pope Pius IX, already aware of the ideas of this wayward bishop, reprimanded him sternly in a private letter in which he reminds him that his stated ideas are comparable to those of Febronius (already condemned) and opposed to the teaching of the IVth Lateran Council. In the same letter the pope complained also of the presence of Mgr Darboy at the funeral of a freemason and other scandals.

Darboy did not reply to the pope for some months and, when he finally did so, adopted a haughty tone to justify himself and to rebuke the pope! He retracted nothing whatever of the errors which had been reported throughout France with glee by the anti-Catholic press! He wrote to Cardinal Antonelli (the pope's secretary of state), for transmission to the pope, that the doctrinal question amounted to nuances of expression and that the other accusations were no more than puerile gossiping and insidious calumnies.

Nothing was done and in 1867 he met the pope in Rome, but, contrary to the hope he had given, did not mention the subject of this conflict at all.

In 1868 a new clash ensued between Mgr Darboy and Rome, when the private letter of the pope dated 1865 was "leaked" and widely published. Still Rome allowed the situation to “ride” and meanwhile the Vatican Council was in preparation.

Before and at the council, Darboy, needless to say, opposed the dogma of papal infallibility. For more than five years, despite the rebukes of the pope and of the nuncio, he never withdrew his extremely public errors against the faith. And then when the council proclaimed the dogmas concerning the pope, in 1870, he did not adhere to them. On 2nd March 1871, he at last informed the pope privately of his adherence to these dogmas, and even then he continued to delay before carrying out his duty of promulgating these decrees in his diocese. Only that promulgation at last constituted an implicit withdrawal of the false doctrines he was on public record as holding, despite the rebuke of the pope, since 1865.

Now was Mgr Darboy during that period a public heretic or not? If one answers "yes", one is in manifest disagreement with Ven. Pope Pius IX. And of course those who not only accuse others lightly of heresy, but even hold that remaining in communion with uncondemned heretics is an act of heresy, schism or at best a grave public sin entailing exclusion from the sacraments must conclude that all the Catholics of Paris, laity and clergy, simultaneously fell from grace by continuing to recognise Darboy as their bishop even when they deplored his behaviour.

What about this example? Did Archbishop Darboy automatically lose his office when he preached heresy? And keep in mind, not only did he publicly preach heresy, but he was reprimanded by the pope himself, thereby removing any change that he was simply mistaken. Now, if Archbishop Darboy lost his office, how do you explain Pius IX treating him as a Bishop and allowing him to take part at Vatican I?

I'll be interested in hearing your reply to these two examples. There are more examples I could bring forward, but these should suffice.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:33 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Felipe Coelho wrote:

Dear RJS, Salve Maria!

Without entering into the arguments that are being discussed between you and Messieurs Lane and Jacobo, may I ask you a couple of questions, in order to be able to better appreciate what is being said by each side on this debate?

My first question then would be, have you read the following study by Fr. Cekada:

My second question would have to do with what Bouix is saying in the following passage you quote of him:

"In the first place, therefore, we have said that the papal heresy of which we treat here does not constitute an evil so grave that it necessarily obliges one to think that Christ would desire the deposition of such a Pontiff. It is a question, in effect, of exclusively private heresy, that is, professed by the Pontiff not as Pastor of the church and in his papal decrees and acts, but only as a private doctor and just in his private speeches and writings. Now, as long as the Pope teaches the true faith whenever he defines or makes pronouncements as Pontiff, the faithful will be sufficiently safe, even though it be known, at the same time, that the Pope himself adheres privately to some heresy. All would easily understand that an opinon defended by the Pope as a private doctor would be destitute of authority, and that he should only be obeyed when he defined or imposed truths of faith officially and with the pontifical authority."

Now, only to make sure that I understand where you're coming from, don't you see that this most certainly does not apply to the "conciliar popes" at all?

I have a few thoughts in that. The first is that none of these popes have attempted to define an error as true. Second, without defending their often misleading writings, they usually allow just enough ambiguity so that their fans can offer up a defense of what they wrote. In other words, due to the ambiguous language, and what Pius X called "novelty of words" (which don't have a long established history and therefore fixed meaning) it is often difficult to pin them down on officially teaching error. [/quote]

But I would be interested in hearing if you have a reply to my previous post regarding Fr. Newman and Archbishop Darboy. Were these men public manifest heretic who automatically lost their office? If not, why?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:12 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Since this it is easy for you to apply this cannon, I'll give two examples and let you tell me if these men who publicly taught heresy automatically lost their office. Both of these examples come from an article written by John Daly.

Quote:

John Henry Cardinal Newman:

In 1845 an Anglican minister became a Catholic - John Henry Newman. Already learned in patristics, he did not equip himself with an adequate formation in Catholic theology. Ordained priest, he wrote on theological questions, admitting errors in Holy Scripture, salvation outside the Church, etc. One of the propositions later condemned by St Pius X's Lamentabili (Prop. 25) appears three times verbatim in different writings of Newman. Naturally in the prelude to the 1870 Vatican Council he opposed papal infallibility. His writings were attacked by Cardinals Franzelin, Lépicier and Billot, by Perrone and Brownson among others. Cardinal Manning reproached him with ten distinct heresies to be found in his writings. Other bishops spoke of his heresies also. Detailed refutations appeared which he could hardly have been unaware of. Nonetheless he retracted nothing.

So was he a heretic? Far from being excommunicated...he was himself raised to the cardinalate! The whole Church remained in communion with him. The only explanation for this must be that, despite appearances, his errors were not deemed to be directly and explicitly heretical...or else that the Catholics of the day, from the pope down, had a conception of pertinacity considerably more demanding than that in circulation among members of that sedevacantist school which hurls its anathemas so lightly in our days.

Fr. Newman's heresies were public. In fact, he was even confronted with them, yet "retracted nothing". So, based on your application of canon 188.4, did Fr. Newman automatically cease to be a member of the Church? If not, why? If so, how do you explain that he was raised to the cardinlate after public professing these heresies, and without ever retracting them?

The next example deals with an Bishop who publicly preached heresy. He was sent a letter by the pope himself telling him that his public views were heretical, yet he "retracted nothing". From the article...

Quote:

Mgr Darboy

In 1865 Mgr Darboy, archbishop of Paris and member of the French senate expressed in an important speech to the senate ideas clearly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, which, unlike papal infallibility, already belonged to the corps of Catholic doctrine. The speech was a public defiance of the pope and a refusal to recognise the pope's ordinary and universal jurisdiction in the dioceses of France.

Pope Pius IX, already aware of the ideas of this wayward bishop, reprimanded him sternly in a private letter in which he reminds him that his stated ideas are comparable to those of Febronius (already condemned) and opposed to the teaching of the IVth Lateran Council. In the same letter the pope complained also of the presence of Mgr Darboy at the funeral of a freemason and other scandals.

Darboy did not reply to the pope for some months and, when he finally did so, adopted a haughty tone to justify himself and to rebuke the pope! He retracted nothing whatever of the errors which had been reported throughout France with glee by the anti-Catholic press! He wrote to Cardinal Antonelli (the pope's secretary of state), for transmission to the pope, that the doctrinal question amounted to nuances of expression and that the other accusations were no more than puerile gossiping and insidious calumnies.

Nothing was done and in 1867 he met the pope in Rome, but, contrary to the hope he had given, did not mention the subject of this conflict at all.

In 1868 a new clash ensued between Mgr Darboy and Rome, when the private letter of the pope dated 1865 was "leaked" and widely published. Still Rome allowed the situation to “ride” and meanwhile the Vatican Council was in preparation.

Before and at the council, Darboy, needless to say, opposed the dogma of papal infallibility. For more than five years, despite the rebukes of the pope and of the nuncio, he never withdrew his extremely public errors against the faith. And then when the council proclaimed the dogmas concerning the pope, in 1870, he did not adhere to them. On 2nd March 1871, he at last informed the pope privately of his adherence to these dogmas, and even then he continued to delay before carrying out his duty of promulgating these decrees in his diocese. Only that promulgation at last constituted an implicit withdrawal of the false doctrines he was on public record as holding, despite the rebuke of the pope, since 1865.

Now was Mgr Darboy during that period a public heretic or not? If one answers "yes", one is in manifest disagreement with Ven. Pope Pius IX. And of course those who not only accuse others lightly of heresy, but even hold that remaining in communion with uncondemned heretics is an act of heresy, schism or at best a grave public sin entailing exclusion from the sacraments must conclude that all the Catholics of Paris, laity and clergy, simultaneously fell from grace by continuing to recognise Darboy as their bishop even when they deplored his behaviour.

What about this example? Did Archbishop Darboy automatically lose his office when he preached heresy? And keep in mind, not only did he publicly preach heresy, but he was reprimanded by the pope himself, thereby removing any change that he was simply mistaken. Now, if Archbishop Darboy lost his office, how do you explain Pius IX treating him as a Bishop and allowing him to take part at Vatican I?

I'll be interested in hearing your reply to these two examples. There are more examples I could bring forward, but these should suffice.

RSJ,

This is what I found:

Billot, De Eccl.

Quote:

Thesis XI

Although Baptismal character is sufficient in itself to make someone member of the Catholic Church, nevertheless for adults two conditions are required in order to produce this effect. The first is that it is not impeded the social bound of unity of faith through formal or even mere material heresy. In fact since this impediment is brought only by the openly professed heresy, we have to say that it excludes only the notorious heretics from the body of the Church.

“According to the etymology of the word and the common meaning of the whole tradition, someone is properly called heretic who after receiving the sacrament of baptism, does not receive from the ecclesiastical magisterium the rule of believers, but rather he chose some other norm for believing on matters of faith and of the doctrine of Christ: whether he follow other doctors and teachers of religion, whether he adhere to the principle of free exam professing the absolute independence of reason, or whether he finally don`t believe even one of those articles propossed by the Church as dogmas of faith...”“...Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to which the authority of the Church is well known; whereas material heretics are those that chose on good faith another directive rule, while invincibly ignoring about the very Church. The heresy of the material heretics is not imputed to them as sin, even they don`t necessary lack the supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all iustification. Perhaps they believe explicitly the main articles, and the rest only in an implicit way, with a disposition of the will and a good will to adhere all those things that be sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God. Therefore they may still belong by desire to the body of the Church, and having the other conditions to be saved. Nevertheless regarding the real incorporation into the visible Church, of which we are talking about, the thesis doesn`t make any distinction between formal and material heretics, understanding all these things according to the notion of material heresy, which is the only one both genuine and proper, that we will explain soon. Because if by material heretic you understand he who, professing to depend on things on faith upon the magisterium of the Church, denies something defined by the Church because he doesn´t know it was defined, or he holds some sentence contrary to the Catholic doctrine because he believes wrongly that it was defined by the Church, then it would be absurd to put material heretics outside the body of the true Church, but in this way it would be completly twisted the legitimate meaning of the word. Because it is said that there is a material sin only when you put (make) materially those things that are proper of such a sin, without warning or deliberated will. Instead it is of the reason of heresy the removal (separation) from the ecclesiastical magisterium, which doesn´t exist in that case (material heresy as it was explained before), since it is a simple error of fact regarding what the rule teaches.”

Parenthesis mine.

I believe that both examples you brought may be explained as an error of fact and not as an error of law, that is they believe the Pope was the supreme head although they believed his power was not as much extended as it really is.

I disagree with this assertion of J. Daly: “ideas clearly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, which, unlike papal infallibility, already belonged to the corps of Catholic doctrine”

Salaverri says:

Quote:

“Thesis V: after His resurrection from the death Christ Our Lord, confered the Primacy of jursidiction upon the universal Church directly and immediately upon S. Peter”

Dogmatic value: The thesis is fide definita at the Vat. Council (D 1822 s)

The same is said regarding his

Quote:

thesis X: “The Primacy of the Pope is universal, ordinary, immediate, truly episcopal, supreme and full, and there is no superior judgment upon earth”

This was defined in Vatican I against Gallicans and therefore it was not an heresy before the Council, therefore you could at that time hold it and still be Catholic.

Salaverry quotes the reference of the refutation of Darboy made by Pius IX. It is AAS 11, pag. 210-220. I read it and I found no heresy (a lot of errors for sure, but no heresy).

Billot said somewhere (sorry I looked it twice but couldn´t found it) that the Gallicans (such as Darboy) were not heretics at the beginning, that they were a very unique kind of heretics since while accepting the primacy of the Pope, yet they rejected for instance that the Pope may condemn any book, when the Pope said he can do it, then they say he misunderstood the author, and then the Pope said that he has the authority to declare what the meaning is, etc. In the Vatican Council all this nonsense came to an end.

Can you name a clearly taught heresy of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI? I'm curious to see if a similar explanation can be offered for the best example of a heresy you can find in their writings.

Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:43 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

Cristian,

Can you name a clearly taught heresy of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI? I'm curious to see if a similar explanation can be offered for the best example of a heresy you can find in their writings.

Well the difference with a Pope is that he is also infallible, that is, he cannot err even if the error is not an heresy. Take for instance the identity of the Catholic Church with the Mystical Body, or religious freedom, or even the approval of a "Mass" who has no consecration, etc.

And also you have to add that a person may be heretic through his deeds, such as all the "concelebration" with heretics, Assisi, etc.

What about the beatification of JPII? Do you really think that you can go to heaven if you do what he did? Because that is what BXVI is telling you.

Or what about the permission to use contraceptives?

If you wish some heresies what about the denial of the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for infants? (Pelagianism)

Besides, you don´t need to be sure he is an heretic for rejecting him, quite the opposite you need to be sure he is the Pope in order to accept him as such (this is a principle of moral theology commonly taught). This means that if you have serious doubts that BXVI is not the Pope you cannot accept him as such.

I think it is prudent to reject him.

Pius XII teaches us that one of the differences between a Catholic and a non-Catholic is that a Catholic is secure that he is being taught the right doctrine, commendaments (laws) and that the sacraments he receives are valid. None of these things you can have if you follow BXVI: you have doubtful Masses, doubtful priests and Bishops, etc, You cannot follow his teaching or commendments without putting at risk the salvation of your soul. Otherwise you couldn´t object for instance the abomination of Assisi and you´d have no problem to assist there.

To sum up, taking as a whole you have a new faith, new commendments and new sacraments, that is a new church.

Now that Cristian has already answered very well about Mgr Darboy (only, I think that to belong to the corpus of Catholic doctrine does not necessarily mean being of divine faith, much less being de fide definita, so perhaps there was no error in that statement of Mr. Daly's after all?), I only wish to add something about then Father John Henry Newman.

It's an exaggeration to claim that Newman never ever retracted anything, unless of course it is spoken here of a 100% satisfying retraction, in that case perhaps that statement could be defended.

But the fact of the matter is that Newman actually did make a retraction of sorts at least with regard to his most blatant heresy, the one for which he was accused of heresy in Rome by Cardinal Franzelin and others: Newman had said something to the effect that during the Arian crisis the majority of the Bishops in union with the Pope had defected. Which is heresy.

Indeed one of the proofs of sedevacantism is that otherwise one inevitably falls into grave errors or even heresies regarding the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, defined by Vatican I.

And so it was that Newman's heresy published in that liberal rag, The Rambler, would be revived in the second half of the XXth century by so-called traditionalists, who often quote the precise statement denounced by Roman theologians (amazing!) that Newman however retracted later on and even admitted that its most natural sense was in fact the heretical one... the one for which traditionalists still quote him to this day, ignoring this later retraction.

Which brings me to my last point for now. John Daly's essay you quote, as is clear all along and as he explicitly states in the end, was directed to comparing these sad cases (Darboy, Newman etc.) with SSPX and the like, in order to show that sedeplenist traditionalists aren't necessarily heretics and schismatics notwithstanding all the strong appearences to the contrary. (E.g. Fellay's last homily.) It does not really apply however, the author assures us, to the current modernist claimants to the Papacy.

Why? Well, in case you've finished reading that Fr. Cekada study (It's really good, isn't it?), then if you don't mind, with regard to this last question you made and which Cristian has just answered, I'd refer you to yet another text, this time from this very Forum, where you might find a more elaborate answer in the same vein as Cristian's, from the same author of the text you've been quoting:

Finally, I should say that your restrictive interpretation of Bouix's words as applying only to solemn definitions is so manifestly against his own very clear words, and also against the main thrust of his argument (the reason why in his view the "heretical Pope" might not be such a terrible evil: because he'd keep his heresy to his private actions!), that I rest my case on this point.

In JMJ,Felipe Coelho

Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:25 pm

RJS

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:25 amPosts: 98

Re: Question from a non-Sede

I have a lot to say about the last two posts. So much that I really don't know where to begin. For now, I'll just respond to a few points.

Quote:

Which brings me to my last point for now. John Daly's essay you quote, as is clear all along and as he explicitly states in the end, was directed to comparing these sad cases (Darboy, Newman etc.) with SSPX and the like, in order to show that sedeplenist traditionalists aren't necessarily heretics and schismatics notwithstanding all the strong appearences to the contrary. (E.g. Fellay's last homily.) It does not really apply however, the author assures us, to the current modernist claimants to the Papacy.

I realize that Mr. Daly claims it doesn't apply to the modernist claimants to the papacy, but I disagree. I think it applies perfectly. He provides one example after another of a Catholic teaching heresy and remaining within the Church. These examples show that we cannot be rash in claiming that this or that person has expelled himself from the Church by saying something heretical, or writing something heretical. You an I may believe the person knows better, but we still cannot be rash in claiming that such a one has ceased to be members of the Church. Again, all the examples Mr. Daly provides in that paper confirm my point.

Let me also address something Cristian said, namely, that due to infallibility a pope cannot err, even if it s not a heresy. That statement stretches Papal Infallibility far beyond the limits of the definition given at Vatican I. A pope is only protected from error when he is defining a doctrine to be held by the entire Church or taking a definitive position on a point that falls under the secondary objects of infallibility. The following is the definition of Papal Infallibility given by Vatican I:

Quote:

Vatican I: "And so, faithfully holding on to that tradition recognized from the very beginning of the Christian religion … with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a dogma revealed by God: that the Roman pontiff when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church, he possesses, thanks to the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines on faith or morals; and consequently that definitions by the same pontiff are by their very nature, and not because of the consent of the Church, irreformable."

If a pope is not defining a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, or taking a definitive position on a secondary object of infallibility, error is possible. The following is from Van Noot.

Quote:

Van Noort: The conditions for papal infallibility are summed up in the words: "when he speaks ex cathedra." A throne (cathedra-chair-judicial bench) is normally a symbol of authority and particularly of doctrinal authority. The consecrated formulae: "to speak ex cathedra," or "an ex cathedra definition" were in use in theological schools long before the Vatican Council. They designated the full exercise of the papal magisterium. The Vatican Council, however, added this precise explanation: "that is: when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church".

Keeping in mind, then, what has already been explained in discussing the object of infallibility (see nos. 85-96), "to speak ex cathedra" signifies two things: (a) the pope is actually making use of his papal office – of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians; (b) the pope is using his papal authority at its maximum power. Both these facts must be made known clearly and indisputably. It makes no difference, however, whether they be made known by the words the pope uses, or by the circumstances of the case. Briefly, no set formula, and no particular type of solemnity is required for an ex cathedra statement.

(...) In reference to point a:– A man holding public office does not always act in his official capacity. Again, if the same person holds several offices simultaneously, he does not have to be constantly exercising his highest function. We must keep these points in mind when discussing the pope's infallibility, for he fulfills several positions simultaneously. He is not only the pope of the whole Catholic Church, he is also the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, metropolitan of its surrounding sees, and temporal sovereign of the Vatican state. Consequently, if the pope speaks merely as a private individual, or as a private theologian, or as a temporal sovereign, or precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome, or precisely as metropolitan of the province of Rome, he should not be looked on as acting infallibly. (...)

What is required for an infallible declaration, therefore, is that the pope be acting precisely as pope; that is, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians so that his decision looks to the universal Church and is given for the sake of the universal Church. ...

With reference to point b: – A man who acts in an official capacity does not always make use of his full power, of the whole weight of the authority which he possesses by his very position. A president may, for example, disagree with a bill of Congress, and express his disapproval and yet not take the step of vetoing the bill. Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universal Church without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. Now the Vatican Council defined merely this point: the pope is infallible if he uses his doctrinal authority at its maximum power, by handing down a binding and definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quite clearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent.

Consequently even if the pope, and acting as pope, praises some doctrine, or recommends it to Christians, or even orders that it alone should be taught in theological schools, this act should not necessarily be considered an infallible decree since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. (...)

For the same reason, namely a lack of intention to hand down a final decision, not all the doctrinal decisions which the pope proposes in encyclical letters should be considered definitions. In a word, there must always be present and clearly present the intention of the pope to hand down a decision which is final and definitive.

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church".

To say that Papal Infallibility prevents a pope from erring, without qualifying it as Van Noot does above, is to stretch the teaching beyond the limits established by the Church. And doing that will easily lead to false conclusions when applying the teaching to the current state of affairs in the Church.

Last edited by RJS on Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Can you name a clearly taught heresy of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI? I'm curious to see if a similar explanation can be offered for the best example of a heresy you can find in their writings.

Although at this point **I** (at least) cannot, yet, publicly name a "clearly taught heresy" of "Benedict XVI", I would like to assure you that in my humble opinion and after reading, or having read to me, many of his writings from many of his books, he is possibly the worst heretic with which our poor Church has ever been afflicted. Furthermore, from his own words, he is a contumacious, public, and persistent heretic, having never changed his opinions, and whose books are continuing to be published.

We have been, for the past couple of months, working on an article for our website which will list and discuss as many of these as we have room and time for. When we are finished with our article (my wife is doing all of the writing while I am editing it), we will quote some of it here for your consideration, discussion and opinion.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:32 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

John Lane wrote:

RJS,

You're entitled to adopt the discredited position of Suarez if you like.

But its not just Suarez' position. He said it was the common opinion in his day. You might not agree with it, but I'm sure you wouldn't accuse him of lying. Yet if he is telling the truth, it is not merely his lone opinion, but the common opinion of his day.

Obviously he wasn't lying, he was a very holy man.

But one sees this kind of thing all the time. In this specific controversy, we see authors claimed for both sides by different writers. This is due to the subtlety of some of the writing, in my opinion. The point is not to form any judgement until one is familiar with the field.

But let's say Suarez's view was the most common in his day. It isn't now. It's now discredited, overwhelmed by the authority of St. Robert Bellarmine, in the same way that Gallican and Conciliarist ideas were killed by St. Robert Bellarmine, the doctor of the papacy par excellence.

If you choose the discredited minority position, against the writing of a Doctor of the Church whose doctrine has become common, you have to have a good reason. Otherwise you are acting with the very definition of rashness. And rashness in theology is a sin.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:22 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

RJS wrote:

But granting this opinion for the sake of argument, we still have the following question: At what point is the pope considered a "notrious heretic".

The first thing to do is grasp the doctrinal issues, then they can be applied to concrete circumstances.

Do you claim that a pope who left Rome, travelled to Geneva, and declared that he was going to live there in communion with the Calvinists because Calvin was right in his objections to Rome, would remain pope?

On Suarez's theory he would, until the Church met and declared him deposed. Likewise Cajetan's theory. Bouix, incredibly, says that he would remain pope and nothing could be done about it at all. Bellarmine says no, he'd be non-pope without any declaration or judgement whatsoever. Don't concern yourself with the subtle cases until you have a grasp of the principles as applied to the crass cases.

RJS wrote:

If he a pope openly left the Church, we would have a clear case.

Yes, but you need to make up your mind whether you accept Suarez (or Bouix!), or whether you follow Bellarmine. In the light of the correct principles, you can then judge specific cases. But while you flip between quoting Suarez as your authority and claiming that a particular case is confusing, you have no hope of clear or useful thought.

RJS wrote:

Or if he openly admitted that he did not accept this or that dogma of the Faith a strong case could be made.

No case could be made at all without agreement on principles. Bouix's principles would not permit you raise the question at all.

RJS wrote:

Lastly, consider what Suarez and Bouix said. I'll quote the latter, but both made similar statement: “It would be most harmful to the Church if the Pope were deposed “ipso facto” for being a heretic. For this would be done either only when he were a notorious and public heretic, or also for occult external heresy, or even for internal heresy. If it were for public and notorious heresy, there would arise doubts as regards the degree of notoriety or infamy necessary for the Pontiff to be considered destitute of the Papacy. Thence would arise schisms and everything would become uncertain, the more so if, in spite of the alleged notoriety, the Pope were to conserve his charge by force or by any other means, and continued to exercise many acts of his office".

This is exactly what we see today. The sedevacantist are probably as divided as the Protestants 40 years after their so-called reform. In other words, we see that what Suarez and Bouix said would happen, is exactly what has happened within Sedevacantism.

That's funny. So you're choosing unity of faith, unity of charity, against disunity? The unity of faith of the Novus Ordo? The unity of charity of the Novus lowerarchy and the SSPX? Where's the unity of faith and charity that you think you might lose if you chose to see that the See of Rome is vacant?

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:33 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Felipe Coelho wrote:

Dear RJS, Salve Maria!

Now that Cristian has already answered very well about Mgr Darboy (only, I think that to belong to the corpus of Catholic doctrine does not necessarily mean being of divine faith, much less being de fide definita, so perhaps there was no error in that statement of Mr. Daly's after all?)

Ahhh you are right! So I retract what I said! I clearly confused both terms!

Van Noort: The conditions for papal infallibility are summed up in the words: "when he speaks ex cathedra." A throne (cathedra-chair-judicial bench) is normally a symbol of authority and particularly of doctrinal authority. The consecrated formulae: "to speak ex cathedra," or "an ex cathedra definition" were in use in theological schools long before the Vatican Council. They designated the full exercise of the papal magisterium. The Vatican Council, however, added this precise explanation: "that is: when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church".

Keeping in mind, then, what has already been explained in discussing the object of infallibility (see nos. 85-96), "to speak ex cathedra" signifies two things: (a) the pope is actually making use of his papal office – of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians; (b) the pope is using his papal authority at its maximum power. Both these facts must be made known clearly and indisputably. It makes no difference, however, whether they be made known by the words the pope uses, or by the circumstances of the case. Briefly, no set formula, and no particular type of solemnity is required for an ex cathedra statement.

(...) In reference to point a:– A man holding public office does not always act in his official capacity. Again, if the same person holds several offices simultaneously, he does not have to be constantly exercising his highest function. We must keep these points in mind when discussing the pope's infallibility, for he fulfills several positions simultaneously. He is not only the pope of the whole Catholic Church, he is also the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, metropolitan of its surrounding sees, and temporal sovereign of the Vatican state. Consequently, if the pope speaks merely as a private individual, or as a private theologian, or as a temporal sovereign, or precisely as ordinary of the diocese of Rome, or precisely as metropolitan of the province of Rome, he should not be looked on as acting infallibly. (...)

What is required for an infallible declaration, therefore, is that the pope be acting precisely as pope; that is, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians so that his decision looks to the universal Church and is given for the sake of the universal Church. ...

With reference to point b: – A man who acts in an official capacity does not always make use of his full power, of the whole weight of the authority which he possesses by his very position. A president may, for example, disagree with a bill of Congress, and express his disapproval and yet not take the step of vetoing the bill. Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universal Church without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. Now the Vatican Council defined merely this point: the pope is infallible if he uses his doctrinal authority at its maximum power, by handing down a binding and definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quite clearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent.

Consequently even if the pope, and acting as pope, praises some doctrine, or recommends it to Christians, or even orders that it alone should be taught in theological schools, this act should not necessarily be considered an infallible decree since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. (...)

For the same reason, namely a lack of intention to hand down a final decision, not all the doctrinal decisions which the pope proposes in encyclical letters should be considered definitions. In a word, there must always be present and clearly present the intention of the pope to hand down a decision which is final and definitive.

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law a forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church".

To say that Papal Infallibility prevents a pope from erring, without qualifying it as Van Noot does above, is to stretch the teaching beyond the limits established by the Church. And doing that will easily lead to false conclusions when applying the teaching to the current state of affairs in the Church.

Will for instance the promulgation of the new code of canon law fulfill all this?

But the fact of the matter is that Newman actually did make a retraction of sorts at least with regard to his most blatant heresy, the one for which he was accused of heresy in Rome by Cardinal Franzelin and others: Newman had said something to the effect that during the Arian crisis the majority of the Bishops in union with the Pope had defected. Which is heresy.

Indeed one of the proofs of sedevacantism is that otherwise one inevitably falls into grave errors or even heresies regarding the infallibility of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, defined by Vatican I.

Felipe,

Can you explain what you meant by the underlined part. I am familiar with the teaching of Vatican I you refer to, but I am trying to understand how you understand it, and how you are applying it to what Newman wrote. How would the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium prevent a majority of the Bishops from falling into error?

Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:00 pm

Felipe Coelho

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:48 pmPosts: 17

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Dear RJS, Salve Maria!

Newman implied that the Ecclesia docens (the Church teaching i.e. The Pope + the Bishops in union with the Pope) had approved the Arian heresy in the IVth century, in a similar way as sedeplenist traditionalists imply that the Ecclesia docens today (in their view, the "conciliar popes" + "bishops") teaches as revealed a doctrine that has been infallibly condemned in the past.

But the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible, the Vatican Council tells us, and hence incapable of approving either Arianism or religious liberty even for a second.

Newman made a historical blunder (for instance, Pope Saint Liberius never signed any Arian formula...); while the solution to our current predicament is that an essential element is missing for the Ecclesia docens, for the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium to be active today, which is the presence of a real Pope, for it's the Pope who confirms his brethren in the truth.

In JMJ,Felipe Coelho

Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:00 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Dear Felipe,

Great summary!

Newman simply didn't know his theology. He never learned it, and therefore he had to try and patch what he wrote up afterwards. But he still had the wrong end of the stick, even when he avoided actual heresy. The whole thesis on the relative orthodoxy of bishops and laity during the Arian crisis is upside-down.

But did you notice that even this minimiser of infallibility does not allow error in official papal documents?

Quote:

...it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedrâ decisions.

That's the simple doctrine of the Schools - popes cannot err when speaking as popes, to the universal Church. They may err in their capacity of private theologians.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:49 am

Felipe Coelho

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:48 pmPosts: 17

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Dear Mr. Lane, Salve Maria!

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.

And also for allowing me to see clearer some important aspects of Newman's occasionaly obscure text.

Upon reading it, I was even tempted to consider that Newman might be making up some of those excuses as he went, in order to save face...

But however this is, it's very interesting to see that even this friend of Acton and Döllinger was at some point forced to recognise truths that so many traditionalists unfortunately deny today.

Yours in JMJ,Felipe Coelho

Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:32 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Question from a non-Sede

Dear Felipe,

I think Newman was consciously sincere, but unconsciously insincere, if that makes sense. He wanted to be subject to the Holy Father, but he didn't know how. He didn't know how to place aside his own judgements and re-form them on those of the Holy Father. He would have regarded that as some kind of intellectual servitude, whereas it would have been merely the recognition of his own fallibility and other limitations - especially the limitation of having never learned Roman theology properly. In this Manning was immeasurably more blessed, having three years under Perrone and Co. in Rome, studying the whole of the Summa.

Newman, in a word, lacked diffidence. And he lacked sound philosophy, so it was that much harder for him to understand his own mental processes. Both the Apologia and the Grammar of Assent bear witness to this.

Another way to approach these excuses of Newman's is to ask, what would have wrong with him replying, "I see that some of these expressions are unhappy, and suggest heterodox notions, and I now retract them with all my heart and will take from this a valuable lesson in my own infirmity and insufficiency, and especially I will always from now on ensure that a Roman theologian has vetted all of my words before they are published." Instead, he attempted to justify himself, and he never did learn to put his words before Rome before publication.

Rome's attitude to him can be explained by the gratitude it felt for his stupendous work in converting so many Englishmen. He truly broke the unwatered soil of England with his Tracts and his own example. For this he was celebrated by Catholics in England also, of course, so that Rome did not think it prudent to censure him. Pius IX said of his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk that it contained censurable propositions but he did not wish it to be censured, and he suggested that this be repeated to Newman privately. That sums up the situation. Newman couldn't be used in any position of leadership in the Church, but he also was not to be criticised publicly. He was created cardinal when he was too old to act as one, as a mark of respect and gratitude.

Pius IX said of his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk that it contained censurable propositions but he did not wish it to be censured, and he suggested that this be repeated to Newman privately. That sums up the situation

Small wonder that in this day, the post Vatican II Novus order converts from protestantism to the novus ordo, heap praise after praise to " St. Newman" for being the light of their covnersion to " modernist rome"..

One can list all the recent prot converts as listing him as their source for conversion, but conversion to what?

In Xto,Vincent

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:04 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Question from a non-Sede

John Lane wrote:

I think Newman was consciously sincere, but unconsciously insincere, if that makes sense. He wanted to be subject to the Holy Father, but he didn't know how. He didn't know how to place aside his own judgements and re-form them on those of the Holy Father. He would have regarded that as some kind of intellectual servitude, whereas it would have been merely the recognition of his own fallibility and other limitations - especially the limitation of having never learned Roman theology properly. In this Manning was immeasurably more blessed, having three years under Perrone and Co. in Rome, studying the whole of the Summa.

He studied the whole Summa in three years‽ Wow, God bless his soul!

John Lane wrote:

Newman, in a word, lacked diffidence. And he lacked sound philosophy, so it was that much harder for him to understand his own mental processes. Both the Apologia and the Grammar of Assent bear witness to this.

"Real assent" with the "illative sense" versus "notional assent"—the former being more real and the latter including dogma—is a false dichotomy. Larson very convincingly shows that this false dichotomy is the origin of Modernism's depreciation of dogma as lacking a vitality which each individual believer should supplement with his own personal experiences.

For a contrary view, cf. this book's chapter "Bergson, Newman, Aquinas" (pg. 67ff), in which the author shows that the "illative sense" is what St. Thomas calls sapientia or, in Greek, phronesis. He quotes Summa I q. 79 a. 10 ad 3:

Quote:

All [...] [the] acts [of the intellect] [...] belong to one power—namely, the intellectual power. For this power first of all only apprehends something; and this act is called "intelligence." Secondly, it directs what it apprehends to the knowledge of something else, or to some operation; and this is called "intention." And when it goes on in search of what it "intends," it is called "invention." When, by reference to something known for certain, it examines what it has found, it is said to know or to be wise, which belongs to "phronesis" or "wisdom"; for "it belongs to the wise man to judge," as the Philosopher says (Metaph. i, 2).

months after the promulgation of <Aeterni Patris> he [Newman] asked Fr. Robert Whitty, a Jesuit in Rome and most sympathetic to him, as to what the whole encyclical was about. Fr. Whitty wrote back that the Encyclical came because "the Pope [Leo XIII] having himself been brought up in the Society's teaching—knowing that some of our Professors in Italy and France were leaving St. Thomas in certain points of <Philosophy>, and feeling that these were important points against the errors of the day—had expressed a wish that our teaching should return to the old lines."

John Lane wrote:

Another way to approach these excuses of Newman's is to ask, what would have wrong with him replying, "I see that some of these expressions are unhappy, and suggest heterodox notions, and I now retract them with all my heart and will take from this a valuable lesson in my own infirmity and insufficiency, and especially I will always from now on ensure that a Roman theologian has vetted all of my words before they are published." Instead, he attempted to justify himself, and he never did learn to put his words before Rome before publication.

Rome's attitude to him can be explained by the gratitude it felt for his stupendous work in converting so many Englishmen. He truly broke the unwatered soil of England with his Tracts and his own example. For this he was celebrated by Catholics in England also, of course, so that Rome did not think it prudent to censure him. Pius IX said of his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk that it contained censurable propositions but he did not wish it to be censured, and he suggested that this be repeated to Newman privately. That sums up the situation. Newman couldn't be used in any position of leadership in the Church, but he also was not to be criticised publicly. He was created cardinal when he was too old to act as one, as a mark of respect and gratitude.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum